On Montag, 3. September 2012, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > I also think that this goes too far. > > I think that the sponsorship committee should: > 1) verify that the funding asked for is adequate (given the expected > travel costs from the originating country) > 2) rank demands based on *benefit of attendance for Debian*. > If you quantify, for each applicant, the added value of the > attendance for Debian (not in $ or €, but in a "virtual currency"), > it becomes a simple problem (maximize benefit for Debian) with a > simple solution: order applicants using the "benefit/cost" ratio, > sponsor as many as possible => maximize the total added value of > Debconf for Debian. > > I don't think that the "economical effort" should be part of the > ranking. First, it's very hard to quantify, because you need to consider > at least: income, general cost of living, family & other recurring > expenses, does attending debconf result in a loss of income (case if > working freelance), in a loss of vacations (if attending debconf during > vacations), or is the applicant attending debconf as part of your work, > etc. > Second, I think that it's irrelevant: I don't see why we should care > about how hard it would be for the requester to attend if we don't > sponsor him. Also, it turns the process into asking "OK, that requester > says s/he won't attend if we don't sponsor him 200€. But maybe s/he > will attend anyway? Let's see how much s/he earns."
+1 (and I agree with the two not quoted suggestions as well.) _______________________________________________ Debconf-team mailing list Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
